In a remarkably alarming opinion in an emergency docket case Justice Sotomayor, dissents on a DOJ "Motion for clarification" in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D.
Georgetown law prof Steve Vladeck - at this link - engages in a very careful analysis of the concurring opinion of Elena Kagan and the dissent of Justice Sotomayor. in the DVD case which involves the deportation to Sudan of eight people without notice and opportunity to be heard.
[I]f this Court wishes to permit the Government to flout the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause, it cannot avoid accountability for that lawlessness by tasking the lower courts with inventing a rationale. The Court’s continued refusal to justify its extraordinary decisions in this case, even as it faults lower courts for failing properly to divine their import, is indefensible.
“In a democracy, power implies responsibility. The greater the power that defies law the less tolerant can this Court be of defiance. As the Nation’s ultimate judicial tribunal, this Court, beyond any other organ of society, is the trustee of law and charged with the duty of securing obedience to it.” This Court continues to invert those principles. Today’s order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial. Respectfully, I dissent.
No comments:
Post a Comment